Those are very fair points. I did not read his tweet as being completely separate from the tweet he was responding to (Cupp's, which was about Two Scoops). But yes, if that twitter account is talking hypothetically about a biased press (however one can accurately measure and tabulate that), then fair enough. A biased press, IMHO, is a problem when it is strongly allied to a political movement, a given politician (CNN for HRC, or Fox and Friends for Two Scoops), or a given financial interest (e.g. railroads). Other than the press being more profit-driven and profit-conscious than at any time in my lifetime, I don't think we have a particularly bad problem at the moment. We do have a problem in that "news" is more and more becoming: "let's show two angry people argue b/c it helps ratings, and who cares if it shares any useful information." To me, I'd say we have a media laziness and media emotion problem. Even then, it's very hard to separate the ongoing media evolution from our society at large. The media provides what the audience will want to watch and click, in the end. On a totally separate point, you always respond to me very calmly even though I get kind of hyperbolic with my metaphors and rhetoric. It is appreciated, if not really earned. *hat tip*
Separating news from commentary... while there may be some shading of news in the time and placement (eg lead stories), Fox will report all stories as far as I know. And I suspect MSNBC shades it the other way (I mostly watch CNN if I watch network news). That is why there is a marketplace of news sources. But just as fox news will point to the presence of left wing commentators on staff, CNN has right wing commentators. So unless you believe CNN, fox, NYT, or WaPo are intentionally not covering a story... the news is available. There are lots of different news sources. Again, what story was not reported? Certainly you can't be basing "fake news is the enemy of America" on one news source is spending more time covering some news than others?
If, according to you, Fox News is just as biased as all other media outlets, why hasn't Trump ever referred to Fox News as Fake News? You can accuse the left leaning media avoid +ve news about trump, but they arent making up the negative stuff either. The left leaning media really dont have to make up stuff, as the facts and truth offer enough opportunities. That there is so much negative stuff to report is the real problem. Trump and his supporters are not interested in a free and fair press, but only trying to shut up any voice of criticism. Its same with the security clearance stunt. If Trump genuinely thinks all these past officials dont need their security clearance once out of office, he should have withdrawn every one across board, starting with Flynn, but no he only goes after people that criticise him. Richard Branson's description of his lunch with trump several years ago gives an idea of who Trump truly is (https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/meeting-donald-trump) Some years ago, Mr Trump invited me to lunch for a one-to-one meeting at his apartment in Manhattan. We had not met before and I accepted. Even before the starters arrived he began telling me about how he had asked a number of people for help after his latest bankruptcy and how five of them were unwilling to help. He told me he was going to spend the rest of his life destroying these five people.
Does the blogger mean fringe or fringy? And by fringe is he only referring to right-wing fringe, like Breitbart and InfoWars? Because I don't see trump inviting left wing bloggers and "fringe" reporters to press briefings nor calling on their questions like he has the right wing "fringe" media. Since they are "underdogs" too. I'd have a lot more sympathy to this argument if trump didn't say and do offensive things and constantly lie so much. Perhaps that why the so-called "mainstream corporate press" "floridly excoriates" the president... and with "unity." Second, trump and his comms group (spicer, shs, and now shine) have vilified the media from the get go and have ramped up their rhetoric.
Shameful. I wonder how many times these news entertainers get away with these claims. A LOT! https://www.dowjones.com/press-room/a-statement-from-the-wall-street-journal/ A statement from The Wall Street Journal August 17, 2018 On Thursday’s show, Rachel Maddow wrongly asserted that The Wall Street Journal “tried to bury online” an article featuring an interview that reporter Peter Nicholas did with President Trump on Wednesday. Here are the facts: The exclusive ran at the top of WSJ.com on Wednesday night and led the site for much of the day on Thursday. The Journal tweeted the scoop to its 15.8M+ followers. It ran on the front page as the lead story of the print Journal Thursday morning. Even as The Rachel Maddow Show was airing, the article was highlighted in WSJ.com’s “Most Popular Articles” section. It was featured atop Editor in Chief Matt Murray’s daily newsletter sent to nearly 300,000 people. Reporter Peter Nicholas even appeared on MSNBC at 3:07 PM EST Thursday for an interview with Ali Veshi that focused solely on the article. This is the same network that airs The Rachel Maddow Show. That is not burying a story. Rachel herself credited WSJ for “a heck of a scoop.” We appreciate the credit, but we’d also appreciate accuracy and fairness.
Hopefully none, likely too many, and fortunately he has secret service protection. But what was your point?
100% agreed with the above. Its funny you should mention that B-Bob. Many times I wonder if my rhetoric is over the top as I try to be fair to other posters. On the other hand there are specific posters that I make no effort to try to be "reasonable" with as they make no such attempt to be reasonable in return. Regardless, I thank you for the compliment and would simply say in response that you are one of those folks that deserves calm and reasoned responses to your posts. I guess us older folks still remember a time when debate was civil. I sure wish those times would return.
Do you think its possible the White House is getting increased amounts of death threats thanks largely to the blunt rhetoric of the media?
Common practice both ways. Can't say how many times I've seen "Mainstream Media ignoring x story" just to go to their does and see several articles on the topic. I don't approve of either and am not a fan of Maddow who I find exaggerates too much.
No. The media's rhetoric is more nuanced than the President's due to labeling any news that criticizes him "fake news" and the proceeding to go Stalin on then with "enemy of the people". I'm sure the current administration recieved a similar amount of death threats as any previous adminstration. You are going to have to provide some nuanced examples of the news media inciting violence? Do you think when a news program call out Trump lying when he objrctivobj does inciting violence? Does CNN over concentrate on Trump's tweets rather than actual tangible policy discussion such as corporate bribray influencing the Trump's adminstration to have massive defict increasing tax cuts and dismantaling of the Consumer Financal Protection Bureau and EPA regulations or wage stagnation with respect to inflation? Yes. But I wouldn't see how concentrating on how the adminstration is ****ing over actual middle class individuals would lessen the chances of death threats.
